Or perhaps when they're replacing spent fuel rods? I'm sure that if this device is ever used that that could be taken into consideration.
Yes, that's correct, as far as I know. It's just that this device doesn't really gather that much data, and it's probably not worth it---except, as you say, to give an excuse for inspectors to be there. A non-functioning version of the same would do just as well:) Just write "neutrino detector" on the side of the box, no one will know the difference.
Really, we've been able to detect reactors being fired up before--I seem to remember a story about satellite detection of that, or perhaps it was reprocessing, perhaps a year ago, in N. Korea. Or they claimed they had fired up a reactor, and it was disproved. Can't find a reference for some reason. Still, there should be other options.
The point is more that we the U.S. have had a hand in creating these monsters. War is hell, but it sure sells well. Missiles, tanks, fighter jets, and now---neutrino detectors? It's hard to tell where foreign policy ends and the military-industrial complex begins. If there's a distinction.
which apparently indicates that fissile material may be being removed from the reactor to sell to others for, or use themselves, weapons grade material.
Or perhaps when they're replacing spent fuel rods? What happens when you surround this box with a bunch of lead, or point a stream of neutrinos at it? You're right that it's a tool. The question is whether it's a good or useful tool. From what I can tell, having a much more sensitive device located much further away would be a better solution. Building those light water reactors that we promised the Koreans would probably be the best option. Oh, that's right, there's that other nuclear threat in the mideast. Well, probably having the CIA take over the country wasn't the best idea. Maybe we can learn to play nicer with the other children? Foreign policy is really over my head, I guess...
So you, a rogue nation, have physical access to an irritating monitoring device. You don't even have to get inside the box to screw with its results---you can wall it off with lead, or point a beam of neutrinos at it. You can open the box, and hack the device within. You can prevent it from dialing home, and play games with any subsequent inspectors. One time pads aren't a magic bullet, either. You have to keep a copy of the pads on the machine in question, and they have to be kept secret from the person who happens to have physical control over the device. Not possible.
The goal is to stop people with the resources to operate a nuclear reactor and presumably a nuclear weapons program from firing up a reactor without you knowing about it. With a machine that a would-be nuclear power would have physical access to in some way or another. You have successfully moved the avenue of attack. That's not to say that it's entirely worthless, but the problem still exists.
Yeah, and then you just need a secure channel for that data to travel on. What were you thinking of for that? Hooking it into an internet connection? Specialized data link of some sort? Have a technician come download logs every once in a while? Your task is to come up with something that a (presumeably governmental) body with the resources to operate a nuclear power plant (and presumeably one with an eye towards weaponization) can't bypass or falsify. This device just changes the avenue of attack, it doesn't solve the problem completely.
Well, what's the alternative to being at the whim of one company/group? Writing an OS? Finding a group of developers that will listen to what you want in an OS? I think my default linux fanboy response to that question is supposed to be that linux is that OS! I don't really have an opinion, though.
I'm really surprised at the lack of decent chess software for linux. I couldn't even find a decent threaded linux chess program this time last year. Not to mention any actual instructional software. Flight simulation also seems like it would benefit from the Open Software model. I can't imagine that the physics package has changed in recent years. It would be wonderful to put together a basic AirSim framework and see what people did with it. I'm sure one day it'll all be integrated with Google Earth anyway, as will Wikipedia...a kind of informational singularity. Hmm. Oh, but the subject was linux. That's right. Well, eventually these things will be fixed, and linux will be all anyone uses. That'll be about 2020, if we're lucky. And what an interesting world that will be...
Dunno if you're in the US or not, but "Really." followed by a statement generally denotes sarcasm. See also, "Yeah, right." The rest of the post is equally sarcastic in tone. Given that a one word transposition in the GP's post could have produced a complete misinterpretation of the GGP, go fuck yourself, ya stupid AC.
When the state is hurting for money, doesn't collect taxes from residents, you don't actually live there, and you're rich enough to afford it, then the state becomes a business.
The poster I responded to was suggesting that one can get away with doing that sort of thing when buying pot, while the same behavior would be unacceptable at a liquor store. In other words, the customer service you get from the dealer is better than that at a convenience store (or wherever you happen to be buying your moonshine). Note that that's exactly the same thing that the GP said. Reading comprehension ftw...
Who am I to decide what should or should not do to their own bodies?
More to the point, why does the federal government have that right? I believe the primary reason that the Marihuana Tax Act was passed instead of outright criminalizing the substance was because the idea of regulating what people can put into their bodies didn't exactly have universal support. Since then legislation (and the associated government bodies) has been rationalized as being for the general public safety, which is good as far as that goes (e.g. there's nothing wrong with ensuring purity of drugs), but it seems to have been at the cost of individual freedom. Now, the idea that the federal government has the power to regulate 'controlled substances' is accepted by almost everyone, and that's probably one of the things that makes it difficult to enact sensible legislation regarding alcohol and/or marijuana. People need to be reminded that the powers not explicitly laid out in the original documentation were reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
For serious photo editing, Linux does not hold up. As far as I can tell, there are no hardware color calibration systems that work with linux. The GIMP needs years of work (and a name change--it really does matter, people!) before it can catch up to Photoshop. At this point, it seems like another decade will pass before linux will achieve parity, if ever. And likely its main competitor would actually be Mac OS X for that market.
NTFS support is much better than "pretty good". The NTFS-3g guys say that it's completely stable, and they have some sort of documentation to that effect. If that was one thing holding you back, write it off as a non-issue.
Again, the timeframe that I specified was the last few centuries. Within that time, modern democracy was founded. In the last decade, perhaps, you could say that there has been a trend against increased societal freedom. Whether or not those trends will continue remains to be seen. Obesity, cancer, and heart disease have always been part of human existence, but that is likely to change at some point, i.e. the general trend is upwards.
yes, I can really say that science is improving the quality of life of the world population. You can go live without the advances of science if you like. Most people today would be less happy if they did so, and less healthy. Which, to the uneducated observer, would seem a lot like having a lower quality of life...
Really that was nothing more than the answer that I was expecting from you. But yes, the discussion was primarily centered around individuals in first world countries, since that is where most of us here will be raising our offspring, but also applicable to the global population. As for quality of life, I'm just going to quote wikipedia:
"...one can assume with some confidence the higher average level of diet, shelter, safety, as well as freedoms and rights a general population has, the better overall quality of life said population experiences."
So, in order for your statement to be true, it would be sufficient to show that most of those factors have remained constant for all populations and that one or a few have consistently decreased. Then, as health is a factor in quality of life, argue that the advances in medical science of the last few centuries (my original stated timeframe) are outweighed by the regressive tendencies of the other factor(s).
Can't do that? Hmm. Maybe what you say is ridiculous on its face then. Maybe that means you shouldn't have said it...
It's not even worth pointing out how deeply flawed your premises are, how twisted your conclusions. Nor is it worthwhile to speculate how sad your life must be. One can't even call you crazy for believing what you do. You're simply not interested in other people's opinions or ideas. That's fine, but few are interested in your version of the One True Whatever. So maybe quit with the trolling and the ranting? Be on topic? Use logic when assembling an argument? Spelling and grammar are optionals:)
What, food stamps and social welfare programs don't count? What about federal student aid? Unemployment pay? Homeless shelters? I only really need one counterexample here, and there are many. You're living in a world that doesn't actually exist. You especially seem to think that the United States in entirely capitalistic, and that's just not true. A further misconception would be that you seem to think that "society" is immune to change, or that it shouldn't change. Even if (and that's a very big if) the world was laid out the way that you seem to think it is, that would not be indicative that that is the way things are always going to be.
You do realize that the world is way more dangerous than it used to be False. Median lifespan has increased tremendously in the last few centuries, especially in the first world countries. So, your premise is flawed.
most kids aren't strong enough to survive in the unsheltered environment.
That's the basis for civilization. Probably it would not be disingenuous to say that it is the primary reason that human society exists No one is disputing that. What are you actually trying to say? Sorry, easier question: what level of "sheltering" do you feel is adequate? What level is inadequate?
Your argument is a non sequitur. Literally, it does not follow. The conclusion that Africans should be the happiest people on earth does not follow from the premise that happiness is free. Your argument breaks down there. You keep on repeating things which are not meaningful, and detract from the debate. You may want to consider your words and arguments more carefully.
You're not really responding in any sort of logical way to any of the statements of any of these other posters. You're dragging in arguments and statements that don't actually have anything to do with what people are saying. Avoid straw man arguments, especially as jumping-off points for wild rants. It does not lend well to an elevated discussion.
You've got an overly simplified view of the world. Everyone ends up dead eventually, and you've completely overlooked the subsistence lifestyle. You're making sweeping generalizations here, which is never a good idea; one counterexample is all it takes to make what you say incorrect. So: I know, personally, of a village in Alaska that does not use money. To the best of my knowledge, many such groups exist in the United States, and there have been many such groups in the nation's history. Further examples abound outside U.S. borders. Whether or not your arguments are correct, the logic you're using to draw those conclusions is flawed. And you're an asshole with an overly simplified view of reality. Furthermore, there are many religious groups that also fall outside of your ridiculously overly simplified categories. Ever hear of a vow of poverty? Religious devotion? You seem to be trying to incite a flame war here; you certainly don't seem to be interested in any sort of elevated discussion on any subject. People disagree with you, and they're wrong. Fine. Go be like that somewhere else, so that we can maybe attempt to have some sort of meaningful discussion here.
It's possible to live a happy life in this country without ever needing money. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
You act as if we live in a fair society where everyone gets the perfect job, which allows them to do what they love while making bundles of money. I don't see anyone making that argument. That's another straw man. The world isn't black and white. Quit trolling.
You're actually doing a really bad job of arguing the point, and most of what you say is pure BS. You're relating things which don't really have anything to do with each other, except in your (sad) philosophy. What you say is meaningless as long as there's no sense or logic behind it. I know this is an emotional issue, but engage your brain before first before posting this kind of crap.
Please demonstrate a connection between the parent poster's behavior and organized crime. It's arguments like these that are simply meaningless appeals to emotion. It's arguments like these that don't really add anything to the discussion. Read up on logical fallacies before posting, plz.
Mod this redundant, but this is a classic Straw Man argument. You've completely invented this fiction, and then you hold it up as the parent's argument, and say it's ridiculous. Sorry, not a valid argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that's correct, as far as I know. It's just that this device doesn't really gather that much data, and it's probably not worth it---except, as you say, to give an excuse for inspectors to be there. A non-functioning version of the same would do just as well :) Just write "neutrino detector" on the side of the box, no one will know the difference.
Really, we've been able to detect reactors being fired up before--I seem to remember a story about satellite detection of that, or perhaps it was reprocessing, perhaps a year ago, in N. Korea. Or they claimed they had fired up a reactor, and it was disproved. Can't find a reference for some reason. Still, there should be other options.
The point is more that we the U.S. have had a hand in creating these monsters. War is hell, but it sure sells well. Missiles, tanks, fighter jets, and now---neutrino detectors? It's hard to tell where foreign policy ends and the military-industrial complex begins. If there's a distinction.
Or perhaps when they're replacing spent fuel rods? What happens when you surround this box with a bunch of lead, or point a stream of neutrinos at it? You're right that it's a tool. The question is whether it's a good or useful tool. From what I can tell, having a much more sensitive device located much further away would be a better solution. Building those light water reactors that we promised the Koreans would probably be the best option. Oh, that's right, there's that other nuclear threat in the mideast. Well, probably having the CIA take over the country wasn't the best idea. Maybe we can learn to play nicer with the other children? Foreign policy is really over my head, I guess...
So you, a rogue nation, have physical access to an irritating monitoring device. You don't even have to get inside the box to screw with its results---you can wall it off with lead, or point a beam of neutrinos at it. You can open the box, and hack the device within. You can prevent it from dialing home, and play games with any subsequent inspectors. One time pads aren't a magic bullet, either. You have to keep a copy of the pads on the machine in question, and they have to be kept secret from the person who happens to have physical control over the device. Not possible.
The goal is to stop people with the resources to operate a nuclear reactor and presumably a nuclear weapons program from firing up a reactor without you knowing about it. With a machine that a would-be nuclear power would have physical access to in some way or another. You have successfully moved the avenue of attack. That's not to say that it's entirely worthless, but the problem still exists.
Yeah, and then you just need a secure channel for that data to travel on. What were you thinking of for that? Hooking it into an internet connection? Specialized data link of some sort? Have a technician come download logs every once in a while? Your task is to come up with something that a (presumeably governmental) body with the resources to operate a nuclear power plant (and presumeably one with an eye towards weaponization) can't bypass or falsify. This device just changes the avenue of attack, it doesn't solve the problem completely.
I'm really surprised at the lack of decent chess software for linux. I couldn't even find a decent threaded linux chess program this time last year. Not to mention any actual instructional software. Flight simulation also seems like it would benefit from the Open Software model. I can't imagine that the physics package has changed in recent years. It would be wonderful to put together a basic AirSim framework and see what people did with it. I'm sure one day it'll all be integrated with Google Earth anyway, as will Wikipedia...a kind of informational singularity. Hmm. Oh, but the subject was linux. That's right. Well, eventually these things will be fixed, and linux will be all anyone uses. That'll be about 2020, if we're lucky. And what an interesting world that will be...
Dunno if you're in the US or not, but "Really." followed by a statement generally denotes sarcasm. See also, "Yeah, right." The rest of the post is equally sarcastic in tone. Given that a one word transposition in the GP's post could have produced a complete misinterpretation of the GGP, go fuck yourself, ya stupid AC.
When the state is hurting for money, doesn't collect taxes from residents, you don't actually live there, and you're rich enough to afford it, then the state becomes a business.
The poster I responded to was suggesting that one can get away with doing that sort of thing when buying pot, while the same behavior would be unacceptable at a liquor store. In other words, the customer service you get from the dealer is better than that at a convenience store (or wherever you happen to be buying your moonshine). Note that that's exactly the same thing that the GP said. Reading comprehension ftw...
More to the point, why does the federal government have that right? I believe the primary reason that the Marihuana Tax Act was passed instead of outright criminalizing the substance was because the idea of regulating what people can put into their bodies didn't exactly have universal support. Since then legislation (and the associated government bodies) has been rationalized as being for the general public safety, which is good as far as that goes (e.g. there's nothing wrong with ensuring purity of drugs), but it seems to have been at the cost of individual freedom. Now, the idea that the federal government has the power to regulate 'controlled substances' is accepted by almost everyone, and that's probably one of the things that makes it difficult to enact sensible legislation regarding alcohol and/or marijuana. People need to be reminded that the powers not explicitly laid out in the original documentation were reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Reread that quote again, will you?
NTFS support is much better than "pretty good". The NTFS-3g guys say that it's completely stable, and they have some sort of documentation to that effect. If that was one thing holding you back, write it off as a non-issue.
Provide a better definition.
Again, the timeframe that I specified was the last few centuries. Within that time, modern democracy was founded. In the last decade, perhaps, you could say that there has been a trend against increased societal freedom. Whether or not those trends will continue remains to be seen. Obesity, cancer, and heart disease have always been part of human existence, but that is likely to change at some point, i.e. the general trend is upwards.
yes, I can really say that science is improving the quality of life of the world population. You can go live without the advances of science if you like. Most people today would be less happy if they did so, and less healthy. Which, to the uneducated observer, would seem a lot like having a lower quality of life...
I'm sorry, was that intended as a response to me? I'm not sure it applies.
So, in order for your statement to be true, it would be sufficient to show that most of those factors have remained constant for all populations and that one or a few have consistently decreased. Then, as health is a factor in quality of life, argue that the advances in medical science of the last few centuries (my original stated timeframe) are outweighed by the regressive tendencies of the other factor(s).
Can't do that? Hmm. Maybe what you say is ridiculous on its face then. Maybe that means you shouldn't have said it...
It's not even worth pointing out how deeply flawed your premises are, how twisted your conclusions. Nor is it worthwhile to speculate how sad your life must be. One can't even call you crazy for believing what you do. You're simply not interested in other people's opinions or ideas. That's fine, but few are interested in your version of the One True Whatever. So maybe quit with the trolling and the ranting? Be on topic? Use logic when assembling an argument? Spelling and grammar are optionals :)
What, food stamps and social welfare programs don't count? What about federal student aid? Unemployment pay? Homeless shelters? I only really need one counterexample here, and there are many. You're living in a world that doesn't actually exist. You especially seem to think that the United States in entirely capitalistic, and that's just not true. A further misconception would be that you seem to think that "society" is immune to change, or that it shouldn't change. Even if (and that's a very big if) the world was laid out the way that you seem to think it is, that would not be indicative that that is the way things are always going to be.
That's the basis for civilization. Probably it would not be disingenuous to say that it is the primary reason that human society exists No one is disputing that. What are you actually trying to say? Sorry, easier question: what level of "sheltering" do you feel is adequate? What level is inadequate?
Step 2: dismiss straw man argument by ridicule
step 3: ???
Step 4: old tired argument^H^H^Hprofit!!
Your argument is a non sequitur. Literally, it does not follow. The conclusion that Africans should be the happiest people on earth does not follow from the premise that happiness is free. Your argument breaks down there. You keep on repeating things which are not meaningful, and detract from the debate. You may want to consider your words and arguments more carefully.
You're not really responding in any sort of logical way to any of the statements of any of these other posters. You're dragging in arguments and statements that don't actually have anything to do with what people are saying. Avoid straw man arguments, especially as jumping-off points for wild rants. It does not lend well to an elevated discussion.
You've got an overly simplified view of the world. Everyone ends up dead eventually, and you've completely overlooked the subsistence lifestyle. You're making sweeping generalizations here, which is never a good idea; one counterexample is all it takes to make what you say incorrect. So: I know, personally, of a village in Alaska that does not use money. To the best of my knowledge, many such groups exist in the United States, and there have been many such groups in the nation's history. Further examples abound outside U.S. borders. Whether or not your arguments are correct, the logic you're using to draw those conclusions is flawed. And you're an asshole with an overly simplified view of reality. Furthermore, there are many religious groups that also fall outside of your ridiculously overly simplified categories. Ever hear of a vow of poverty? Religious devotion? You seem to be trying to incite a flame war here; you certainly don't seem to be interested in any sort of elevated discussion on any subject. People disagree with you, and they're wrong. Fine. Go be like that somewhere else, so that we can maybe attempt to have some sort of meaningful discussion here.
You're actually doing a really bad job of arguing the point, and most of what you say is pure BS. You're relating things which don't really have anything to do with each other, except in your (sad) philosophy. What you say is meaningless as long as there's no sense or logic behind it. I know this is an emotional issue, but engage your brain before first before posting this kind of crap.
Please demonstrate a connection between the parent poster's behavior and organized crime. It's arguments like these that are simply meaningless appeals to emotion. It's arguments like these that don't really add anything to the discussion. Read up on logical fallacies before posting, plz.
Mod this redundant, but this is a classic Straw Man argument. You've completely invented this fiction, and then you hold it up as the parent's argument, and say it's ridiculous. Sorry, not a valid argument.